To think not everything is ‘misogyny’

[Cuppasoupmonster]

… and that the word is massively overused on here?

I’m getting quite tired of it if I’m honest, it feels like every other conversation the ‘misogyny’ card is whipped out and anyone who disagrees has ‘internalised misogyny’ (um no I just have a different opinion).

It’s becoming the ‘BeKind’ of feminism. Overused to the point it’s getting meaningless and irritating, and just used to ‘win’ any kind of nuanced topic without any proper discussion.

AIBU? 🤷🏼‍♀️

This image popped up in my news feed just now and made me think of this thread.

Here we have some gentleman proving how ‘unemotional’ and ‘logical’ men are, by getting into a fight. Oh, and by being members of a gang.

OohMrBingley - so how does that reflect men in general ? Totally idiotic and uneducated comment. Hardly conducive to debating this issue in an intellectual manner

What bizarre examples.
Maybe some mothers LIKE dropping their children off at school, maybe it's easier. I don't see some invisible manipulative message broadcast at 8 am in the morning. I've told DP he's to earn and I'll take care of the home and children when we have a family.
Because quite simply I want to. You discuss whatever you like, but do not deny my choices or my opinions because you don't like them based on a reification of a loose concept.

Maybe some mothers LIKE dropping their children off at school, maybe it's easier. I don't see some invisible manipulative message broadcast at 8 am in the morning. I've told DP he's to earn and I'll take care of the home and children when we have a family.

And if you'd have wanted it the other way round, he have been entirely happy?

I'm not talking about mothers wanting to drop their children off at school, I'm talking about mothers being perceived by society as 'responsible' for the parenting and being the ones convicted when the children don't go for any reason.

I'm talking about within the same society Agencies not taking the mothers opinion seriously without deferring to the father.

I am really glad you are happy with your life choices. Good for you.

It doesn't mean that other women don't feel forced into situation by patriarchal assumptions and misogyny.

I don't see some invisible manipulative message broadcast at 8 am in the morning.

Well, aside from the fact that you probably wouldn’t see it if it were invisible… you are being very naive.

I’m starting to see that you are possibly very young and have not experienced as much of those exact ‘invisible manipulative messages’ to which you allude.

Do you not believe in societal forces? Do you really think that you make every single decision about your life in complete isolation? So, for example, did you spontaneously decide to put a pine tree in your house last Christmas and then find, by some sort of uncanny coincidence, that loads of other people had done this too??!

I am being facetious of course, but I cannot get past the idea that you think there aren’t invisible forces at work here, and that every time a woman takes on the bulk of domestic work she does it entirely without societal influence. The sheer number of times the decision falls this way must, at the very least, raise a bit of curiosity in you?

It does make me laugh whenever I see the same myths spouted around on here .

Men do not hate woman

Ah, well that’s set us straight- thanks 👍

No problem

Sorry but that's such a silly argument. There are x amount of thefts every week, does that mean we live in a klepto-archy? Ditto for every other crime.

There will always be a percentage of human beings who act in criminal ways. Even in the most civilised society. That's just due to the nature of the beast, and has nothing to do with society at large.

Criminal behaviour, at it's core, is selfishness and total disregard of the feelings and wellbeing of others. This means there will be those who ride roughshod over other for the sake of their own pleasure.

Which 'others'? The ones easiest to ride roughshod over. Strong criminals will pick on weaker people, and less vulnerable on the more vulnerable. This isn't condoned or accepted by society. In fact it happens despite the condemnations of society.

In practice we get selfish men who have controlling tendencies exerting that control over their physically weaker partners. In a same sex relationship the same thing would happen if their partner happened to be weaker. Likewise if women would have been physically stronger (as is actually the case where DA happens from the woman to the man).

This isn't because of a patriarchy or some nebulous 'power' that 'men' have, but because of specific circumstances where the person with violent or controlling tendencies is stronger than their partner.

No restructuring of society would ever get rid of this problem, as it's rooted in biology. In fact if you'd put babies on a desert island and leave them to their own thing, at some point their innate urges of possessiveness and jealousy would emerge, and you'd get stronger people using violence to control the weaker ones.

@SlickShady

Your posts are absolutely bizarre. Opening with calling women challenging you 'silly' and then basically saying 'that's just the way the cookie crumbles so no point fighting it' when silly women want to fight for change re the current status quo.

There is no monolith or group called 'men'.

There is certainly a 'group' called men.

Spoiler alert... they're the ones with penises.

I call anyone who uses silly arguments 'silly'. Nothing to do with being a women.

Men are a group in the biological sense but not in the sense of an organisation or a mindset. I'll try explaining this as simply as I can.

Saying 'the ones in control are men' is not the same as 'men are in control'. The former is a statement about a teeny tiny percentage of all human males in very specific roles, while the latter implies an overarching degree of control shared by all or most men.

Opening with calling women challenging you 'silly'

Actually I've re-checked and I called the argument silly, not the person.

So where I live half of the roads are now blocked off; a journey that took 5 minutes now takes up to 40. These LTNs have been instituted with the idea that we will all leave our cars behind and walk or take public transport and generally help the environment. However, I genuinely believe LTNs. Are inherently misogynistic because it is women who are suffering. That might not have been the intention but it is the result.

That's starting to sound worryingly like suggesting women discussing the patriarchy and women's oppression is comparable to antisemitism SlickShady.

I'll try explaining this as simply as I can.

Mate, your arguments aren't exactly complex. I understand them perfectly.

I just don't agree with your (patronisingly delivered) take on the topic .

The former is a statement about a teeny tiny percentage of all human males in very specific roles, while the latter implies an overarching degree of control shared by all or most men.

When the very specific roles you refer to are those of the greatest influence and power, worldwide, the fact the roles are overwhelmingly held by a 'teeny tiny percentage' of all human males still means that males have an overarching degree of control influence and power.

Nobody has said all men have influence and power.

Your argument is reductive because it doesn't account for the disproportionate power and influence of people in those very specific roles in comparison to the general population.

I'll put it as simply as possible, as you like that strategy.

Even if only 0.00001% (for example, it's obviously much less) of people globally had huge power and influence, if 90% of the people within that 0.00001% are men then men factually have an overarching degree of control, influence and power in comparison to women.

Do you not see any merit in wanting to change that?

Are you for real?

You won't find anyone who hates LTNs as much as do, and I'd happily drop anyone who forces them on the public in the deepest ocean. But from there to claiming they're misogynistic is a distance of minimum several light years. They're anti-human and imposed by arseholey people (ironically very often predominantly women) who use 'the environment' as a means to control others.

Troubling isn't it? I'd wager we'll see Godwin's Law make an appearance before long.

Do you not see any merit in wanting to change that?

No. It wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

To use the analogy mentioned above, the fact that the ones in charge of banking might or might not be predominantly Jewish doesn't mean that any other Jews are part of a 'Jew-archy', or even that one at all exists.

Same with CEOs. The fact that the top ones are predominantly men doesn't mean all the other men, ie the other 99.99999% of men, have any degree of power or are part of some mythical patriarchy. In fact I disagree that the patriarchy at all exists.

But from there to claiming they're misogynistic is a distance of minimum several light years. They're anti-human and imposed by arseholey people (ironically very often predominantly women) who use 'the environment' as a means to control others.

Very often predominantly women? Do you have a source for that? I shared stats upthread on a previous day as I like having factual data to work with.

FYI many of us have been very vocal about issues with LTNs as they disproportionately negatively affect women.

www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/21119552.women-fear-walking-car-less-streets-say-campaigners-ltns/

www.islingtontribune.co.uk/article/women-are-afraid-to-walk-in-these-quiet-streets-after-dark

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/21/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-have-left-women-feeling-unsafe/

To be clear, my argument isn't NAMALT. Rather what I'm saying is that the group 'men' in this sense doesn't exist at all.

Not at all. I'm saying the same twisted arguments that are made by anti-semites against Jews are made by [feminists?] against men.
Exactly
You're comparing women discussing their oppression in a patriarchal society to antisemitism, which is pretty damn questionable

I get tired of the men are this, men are that arguments too. It lacks nuance

@SlickShady

Just to be clear, I asked you:

Even if only 0.00001% (for example, it's obviously much less) of people globally had huge power and influence, if 90% of the people within that 0.00001% are men then men factually have an overarching degree of control, influence and power in comparison to women.

Do you not see any merit in wanting to change that?

And your actual answer is:

No. It wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

I'm alright Jack, eh?

And you even add:

The fact that the top ones are predominantly men doesn't mean all the other men, ie the other 99.99999% of men, have any degree of power or are part of some mythical patriarchy. In fact I disagree that the patriarchy at all exists.

If you don't believe the patriarchy exists you're either unable or unwilling to listen to women.

If you have daughters I hope they have strong female role models in their lives.